Comment by potato3732842

> they implicitly expect

Sure, but crucially "expect some" is not "expect all". The presence of some X is not the same as absolutely zero limitations on X.

Suppose the Federal government chooses to award a letter of Marque and Reprisal to... Bob. However, Bob is in State prison for life, because he was convicted of multiple murders, boat-theft, ramming boats into other boats, selling guns for drugs, whatever.

This sets up a State/Federal conflict, with four major types of resolution:

1. [Specific, State] The Federal government chose a useless agent, but that's their problem for making a stupid choice instead of picking someone not in prison who can wave a gun around and do the job they want done.

2. [Specific, Federal] A lawsuit occurs and it is decided the State has to specifically release Bob from prison and wave a gun around as long as he has that special Federal status.

3. [General, State] The Federal government loses all ability to deputize people because that could potentially cause a conflict.

[General, Federal] The State government loses all ability to imprison anyone or control anybody's gun-waving, because that could potentially cause a conflict.

Surely you'd agree that #4 (and #3) would be insane? Nobody drafted or ratified that M&R clause thinking that they agreed to nullify their State's ability to imprison, nor that the M&R clause itself would be dead on arrival. (Aside, #2 is problematic since it would give Congress a secret pardoning power even more-powerful than the President's.)

> though I don't think they expected the same quantity at that quality

Privateers sunk or captured literally thousands of ships during the Revolution, and were documented to be far more effective than the Continental Navy. The Founders knew this: they were there.